4 ms·

It's draining and kind of silly of you think about it. Why don't we also track and and count other activities: like when you go to the bathroom, how much sex yo

by amasad 8y ago

It's draining and kind of silly of you think about it. Why don't we also track and and count other activities: like when you go to the bathroom, how much sex you have, and perhaps how many breaths a day you take. Animals with no analytic faculties still manage to live healthy lives, so how do they do it? Simply, our bodies have built-in systems for regulating automatic functions. The problem is it's built to survive in the state of nature and modernity is an unnatural environment that throws a wrench in the system. Once you realize this, the solution is clear: minimize the bad influences of modernity and try to live as close as possible to how our ancestors did. Eat meat when hungry, drink water when thirsty, lift heavy weight, and sleep at night and wake up in the morning, get some air and sunlight etc. I've been down the quantified-self road before and at best it leads to a big useless unanalyzed database. At worst, you become paranoid constantly questioning whether you're getting the optimal sleep, calories, sun etc.

mehwoot 8y ago
like when you go to the bathroom, how much sex you have, and perhaps how many breaths a day you take. If roughly two thirds of the population were at risk of serious health complications from doing any of those things too much, then we would.
- amasad 8y ago
  Surely there are health complications with all of those things from bowel issues, to STDS, to lung cancer.
  - mehwoot 8y ago
    You really think those are a) as widespread as obesity b) caused by ways that tracking the number of times you go to the bathroom, have sex or breathe would fix? Obesity is directly caused by a failure to moderate how much we eat, so yes, some of us track how much we eat. It's not really that crazy. If you can do that without tracking it, cool, but its pretty damn clear a lot of people can't.
    - amasad 8y ago
      >Obesity is directly caused by a failure to moderate how much we eat, so yes, some of us track how much we eat. It's not really that crazy. If you can do that without tracking it, cool, but its pretty damn clear a lot of people can't. Actually research shows that people who watch WHAT the eat vs how much they eat lose the weight and keep it off. Calorie counting empirically doesn't work. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calories-weight-loss-diet-dieting-low-carb-low-fat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calorie...
      - mehwoot 8y ago
        Calorie counting empirically doesn't work. Read the article and study you posted. It doesn't show that, it just shows that you can lose weight without using the calorie counting technique. Objective: To determine the effect of a healthy low-fat (HLF) diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate (HLC) diet on weight change and if genotype pattern or insulin secretion are related to the dietary effects on weight loss. Findings: ...weight change over 12 months was not significantly different for participants in the HLF diet group (−5.3 kg) vs the HLC diet group (−6.0 kg), and there was no significant diet-genotype interaction or diet-insulin interaction with 12-month weight loss. A study on low fat vs low carb diets has got absolutely nothing to do with calorie counting.
        amasad 8y ago
        You said "Obesity is directly caused by a failure to moderate how much we eat, so yes, some of us track how much we eat" for which research shows that: a) people on caloric deficit almost always gain the weight back b) people can lose weight without calorie counting
        mehwoot 8y ago
        people can lose weight without calorie counting I didn't say people can't lose weight without calorie counting, just that some of us do use it. Like I said, If you can do that without tracking it, cool
bbeonx 8y ago
Different strokes for different folks, man. I get off on quantification. I hyper focus and I cannot do anything passive. Dieting? That's passive: it involves not doing something. All I can think about is the fact that I shouldn't be eating, which makes me think about eating, which makes me eat. Obsessively counting calories? It makes me do something active: strive for a minimal caloric intake for the day (I say minimal but minimal for me is healthy for anyone else). I need to do the same thing with reading papers. Reading a paper is a passive activity while writing a paper review is active. I try to find at least one major flaw with each paper I read so that I have something active to keep my attention, a goal. Saying "behavior xyz is silly" is unfair and not super constructive. Each of us has a single data point of human experience. Generalizing from that is kind of silly if you think about it. If I could curtail my bathroom activity healthily, and if that would lead to a better and happier life, then dammit I'd track that shit in a heartbeat. Ditto for breathing. And unless you are having an unhealthy amount of sex there is nothing to gain from tracking it (except for ego/lack thereof). The examples you list above all have something in common: there is no benefit to tracking them. For calories, there is an actual benefit.
- amasad 8y ago
  I meant silly from a species perspective -- like you never see a bear counting calories ;) There are two kinds of animals that suffer from obesity, modern humans, and animals that modern humans feed. The culprit is clear, it's our interventionist mindset. It's the USDA telling you exactly to eat the opposite of what you're supposed to eat. The answer is less intervention, not more. Try eating an all or mostly meat diet and I assure you'll feel a lot better and food will go back to being an automatic function for you: http://justmeat.co/ http://justmeat.co/
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > I meant silly from a species perspective -- like you never see a bear counting calories ;) You also never see a bear walking on the Moon, or playing Candy Crush Saga. > The culprit is clear, it's our interventionist mindset. Or maybe that we no longer live on savanna, and the foods we have available are quite different from what our great-{n}-ancestors had.
corv 8y ago
Quantifying doesn't necessarily lead to overwhelming data or questioning. If you want to improve something it is a good idea to measure it. Sensible examples might include: repetitions and weights at the gym, body weight, running / walking distance, hours slept, time wasted on social media Counting calories might not have to be done continuously depending on your diet and goals but definitely helps to realise how much sugar and carbs are in many foods. Calibrating your perception in this way might be enough to convince you to change your habits for good. Many things can be tracked conveniently or automatically even without the need to go BigData. A cheap air monitor can detect high CO2 or VOC in enclosed spaces. Without insight a simple fix such as opening a window may not occur to some. The hope that our bodies can regulate everything intrinsically is not good enough in an increasingly artificial environment and natural is not always healthy.
kazoolist 8y ago
> at best it leads to a big useless unanalyzed database For me, rigorously tracking my caloric intake by weighting nearly everything I've eaten with a food scale and recording it in the Cronometer smart phone app has led to a 100 pound weight loss over the last year, and normalizing my blood pressure & triglycerides. But, you know, at best ... just a useless database. Good grief.
- amasad 8y ago
  Statistically speaking if caloric deficit is the only thing you did then you're going to gain all that back. Sorry. However, if you cleaned up your diet too then that might've been the causal factor and not the tracking which is to nerds what prayer is to the pious.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Statistically speaking, you have 1.5 legs and there is no diet that works. (they have about 20% success rate) Other statistics tell us that calorie deficit is the required and sufficient condition for weight loss. Frequentist statistics do not apply directly to individual cases.
aidenn0 8y ago
Many animals with a surplus of food available do not live healthy lives. If you have to expend calories to get food, as most animals do, then you are at equilibrium.
agaricusx 8y ago
It seems right that if you have things well handled there's no value in putting a lot of effort into analysis. But what's a good approach if the solution isn't clear?

by amasad 8y ago

mehwoot 8y ago

like when you go to the bathroom, how much sex you have, and perhaps how many breaths a day you take. If roughly two thirds of the population were at risk of serious health complications from doing any of those things too much, then we would.

amasad 8y ago
Surely there are health complications with all of those things from bowel issues, to STDS, to lung cancer.
- mehwoot 8y ago
  You really think those are a) as widespread as obesity b) caused by ways that tracking the number of times you go to the bathroom, have sex or breathe would fix? Obesity is directly caused by a failure to moderate how much we eat, so yes, some of us track how much we eat. It's not really that crazy. If you can do that without tracking it, cool, but its pretty damn clear a lot of people can't.
  - amasad 8y ago
    >Obesity is directly caused by a failure to moderate how much we eat, so yes, some of us track how much we eat. It's not really that crazy. If you can do that without tracking it, cool, but its pretty damn clear a lot of people can't. Actually research shows that people who watch WHAT the eat vs how much they eat lose the weight and keep it off. Calorie counting empirically doesn't work. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calories-weight-loss-diet-dieting-low-carb-low-fat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calorie...
    - mehwoot 8y ago
      Calorie counting empirically doesn't work. Read the article and study you posted. It doesn't show that, it just shows that you can lose weight without using the calorie counting technique. Objective: To determine the effect of a healthy low-fat (HLF) diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate (HLC) diet on weight change and if genotype pattern or insulin secretion are related to the dietary effects on weight loss. Findings: ...weight change over 12 months was not significantly different for participants in the HLF diet group (−5.3 kg) vs the HLC diet group (−6.0 kg), and there was no significant diet-genotype interaction or diet-insulin interaction with 12-month weight loss. A study on low fat vs low carb diets has got absolutely nothing to do with calorie counting.
      - amasad 8y ago
        You said "Obesity is directly caused by a failure to moderate how much we eat, so yes, some of us track how much we eat" for which research shows that: a) people on caloric deficit almost always gain the weight back b) people can lose weight without calorie counting
        mehwoot 8y ago
        people can lose weight without calorie counting I didn't say people can't lose weight without calorie counting, just that some of us do use it. Like I said, If you can do that without tracking it, cool

bbeonx 8y ago

Different strokes for different folks, man. I get off on quantification. I hyper focus and I cannot do anything passive. Dieting? That's passive: it involves not doing something. All I can think about is the fact that I shouldn't be eating, which makes me think about eating, which makes me eat. Obsessively counting calories? It makes me do something active: strive for a minimal caloric intake for the day (I say minimal but minimal for me is healthy for anyone else). I need to do the same thing with reading papers. Reading a paper is a passive activity while writing a paper review is active. I try to find at least one major flaw with each paper I read so that I have something active to keep my attention, a goal. Saying "behavior xyz is silly" is unfair and not super constructive. Each of us has a single data point of human experience. Generalizing from that is kind of silly if you think about it. If I could curtail my bathroom activity healthily, and if that would lead to a better and happier life, then dammit I'd track that shit in a heartbeat. Ditto for breathing. And unless you are having an unhealthy amount of sex there is nothing to gain from tracking it (except for ego/lack thereof). The examples you list above all have something in common: there is no benefit to tracking them. For calories, there is an actual benefit.

amasad 8y ago
I meant silly from a species perspective -- like you never see a bear counting calories ;) There are two kinds of animals that suffer from obesity, modern humans, and animals that modern humans feed. The culprit is clear, it's our interventionist mindset. It's the USDA telling you exactly to eat the opposite of what you're supposed to eat. The answer is less intervention, not more. Try eating an all or mostly meat diet and I assure you'll feel a lot better and food will go back to being an automatic function for you: http://justmeat.co/ http://justmeat.co/
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > I meant silly from a species perspective -- like you never see a bear counting calories ;) You also never see a bear walking on the Moon, or playing Candy Crush Saga. > The culprit is clear, it's our interventionist mindset. Or maybe that we no longer live on savanna, and the foods we have available are quite different from what our great-{n}-ancestors had.

corv 8y ago

Quantifying doesn't necessarily lead to overwhelming data or questioning. If you want to improve something it is a good idea to measure it. Sensible examples might include: repetitions and weights at the gym, body weight, running / walking distance, hours slept, time wasted on social media Counting calories might not have to be done continuously depending on your diet and goals but definitely helps to realise how much sugar and carbs are in many foods. Calibrating your perception in this way might be enough to convince you to change your habits for good. Many things can be tracked conveniently or automatically even without the need to go BigData. A cheap air monitor can detect high CO2 or VOC in enclosed spaces. Without insight a simple fix such as opening a window may not occur to some. The hope that our bodies can regulate everything intrinsically is not good enough in an increasingly artificial environment and natural is not always healthy.

kazoolist 8y ago

> at best it leads to a big useless unanalyzed database For me, rigorously tracking my caloric intake by weighting nearly everything I've eaten with a food scale and recording it in the Cronometer smart phone app has led to a 100 pound weight loss over the last year, and normalizing my blood pressure & triglycerides. But, you know, at best ... just a useless database. Good grief.

amasad 8y ago
Statistically speaking if caloric deficit is the only thing you did then you're going to gain all that back. Sorry. However, if you cleaned up your diet too then that might've been the causal factor and not the tracking which is to nerds what prayer is to the pious.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Statistically speaking, you have 1.5 legs and there is no diet that works. (they have about 20% success rate) Other statistics tell us that calorie deficit is the required and sufficient condition for weight loss. Frequentist statistics do not apply directly to individual cases.

aidenn0 8y ago

Many animals with a surplus of food available do not live healthy lives. If you have to expend calories to get food, as most animals do, then you are at equilibrium.

agaricusx 8y ago

It seems right that if you have things well handled there's no value in putting a lot of effort into analysis. But what's a good approach if the solution isn't clear?